Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd v Rawlings [2017] NSWCATCD 74

Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd v Rawlings [2017] NSWCATCD 74

The respondent was the contracting party, but the written contract dated 11 November 2016 did not comply with s 7AAA of the Home Building Act 1989 because it omitted the contractor's name and did not adequately describe or incorporate the scope of work, so it could not be enforced under s 10. The respondent repudiated the oral agreement by requiring only part of the agreed work to proceed. On quantum meruit, the applicant could recover only the fair and reasonable value of services or work actually provided and accepted; claims for loss of profit, scaffold hire, retained materials and duplicate or unproved labour were not recoverable. The recoverable items totalled $1,270.50.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Home Building Claim for Unpaid Residential Building Work / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part on a quantum meruit basis.
Legal Topics
['repudiation of Contract' 'enforceability of Written Residential Building Contract' 'quantum Meruit' 'residential Building Work']
['home Building' 'contract Law' 'consumer and Commercial Disputes'] ['repudiation of Contract' 'enforceability of Written Residential Building Contract' 'quantum Meruit' 'residential Building Work']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Home Building Claim for Unpaid Residential Building Work / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the builder's claim." 'Whether the respondent was the contracting party despite the property being owned by a self-managed superannuation fund.' 'Whether the written contract complied with the Home Building Act 1989 and was enforceable by the builder.' 'Whether the respondent repudiated the agreement by requesting that only part of the agreed work be performed.' 'Whether the applicant could recover, on a quantum meruit basis, the fair and reasonable value of services, materials or work provided and accepted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was the contracting party, but the written contract dated 11 November 2016 did not comply with s 7AAA of the Home Building Act 1989 because it omitted the contractor's name and did not adequately describe or incorporate the scope of work, so it could not be enforced under s 10. The respondent repudiated the oral agreement by requiring only part of the agreed work to proceed. On quantum meruit, the applicant could recover only the fair and reasonable value of services or work actually provided and accepted; claims for loss of profit, scaffold hire, retained materials and duplicate or unproved labour were not recoverable. The recoverable items totalled $1,270.50.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part on a quantum meruit basis.

Orders

  • ['The respondent, Kim Rawlings, is to pay the applicant, Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd, the sum of $1,270.50 immediately.']